CC Resolution No. 3634 1
y
. ' .•s
b ,
f
RESOLUTION N0. 3634
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO G. C. McKINNEY TO REDUCE THE LOT
WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR FOUR LOTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION 3-TM-74; SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED WESTERLY
AND ADJACENT TO LINDA VISTA DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET
SOUTHERLY OF HYANNISPORT DRIVE
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support
his said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearings,
has forwarded its recommendation to the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration,of maps,
facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application
for the Variance (1-V-74) be and the same is hereby approved, sub~ect to con-
ditions in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1243, attached hereunto as
Exhibit "A".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report of findings attached hereto is
approved and adopted, and that the City Clerk' be and is hereby directed to
notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino this day of April , 1974, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Frolich, Jackson, Meyers, Nellis, Sparks
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVED:
/s/ Reed Sparks
Mayor, . Cit}* of Cupertino
ATTEST:
/s/ Wm. E. Rvder
City Clerk
~ Exhibit "A"
~ ' ~ Res. No. 3634
~ ' 1--y--74
RI:SOLUTI.ON N0. 1243
OF THL' ~'LANNING COMi~1ISSI0N OF THE CITY OF CUPERTTNO
RECOr1~?~NDING the denial. of a Variance to reduce the' ~
lot width requirement for lots within tfie proposed
subdivision 3-TM-74.
APPLICANT: G. C. McKinney ~
ADDR~SS: 3275 Stevens Creek Blvd., San ,7ose, Calif. 95117
SUBMITTED: February 27, 1974 ~
LOCATION: Westerly of and adjacent to Linda Vista Drive approximately •
700 ft. sou'therly of Hyannisport Drive
ZONE: A1-43 (Agricultural/Residential, single-f amily, 1-acre lots)
ACREAGE: 4.05 acres ~
FURTHER FINDINGS: ~
1. The Commission finds that the applicant did not demonstrate extra-
ordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land described
by Exhibit A of 1-V-74 to justify the approval of a variance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of March, 1974, at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission of~th~ City of Cupertino, State of California, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Adams, Gatto, 0'Keefe
NAYS : None ~
ABSTAINING: None
ABSENT: None .
~ APPROVED:
Dani.el.~. 0'Keefe, Chainnan
Planning Commission ~
~ ATTEST:
. . C .
Robert S. Cowan
Associate Planner ~
~`x fi,'b `',g
..z..
\
/ •
G I 7 Y c) ~ C U't~ i~ E, T I ~ i
C i t y i-~~ i~, I 030Q ~~~'r- r c~ Aver~:~~
CUnC:rr!(lP~)y C~) I~Ci~fll%a 9r~()l~
Tc~t-~~t1061~: 140~i} 252-~-+r0~
RESOLUT ! O~J OF i I-IE ~'l_Ai N i NG C~MI"1 I S~ I ~N ~F THE C I TY OF CUPERI- I NO
RECOhih1ENQ i NG 1'HE DEN i A! ~Jf' A VA~ ! ANCE
4J1-iL-REAS the F' 1 an~ i ng C~~mrn i s~ i r~t~ c~i~ t"~ C i t}~ c~f Cup~rt i no ~ e-
ceived ar app? ica~it~n ~o; a l/ARIAI~C:~, 3s sta:c~~ or~ P~ge 1, and
1rdHERcAS the appl icani: ha~, f~~JT ~~~E:t ~he bi~~dc~ ~~f proof r~~c;uired
to support h i s sa i d app 1 i cai- i~,n, ~n~.
I~~HEREAS the P 1 ann i r.g C~~mm i ss i or; t i n;.~s that the app 1 i c~t i o;~ does
NOT meet a l i of the f~ i l ow i~i~g rey~; i re;r,en ts ;
That tr~ere are ~pec i al cnr~d i t i~:-;~ o,~ exc:ept i c~al character-
ist.ic~ in the nat~~it-e of ~~t~~~ property~ to b~ ~ffec.te~, ~~r
that i ts 1~cat i~n ~r~ i ts c~~<<-c~~i~d i r~;g ~ are :uch as wi 1 1 per--
m i t t~e Comm i~: i~;n ma!:~ a~'e ~e~~'m i!-t~t i an tl~at a 1 i tera 1
enforcement of th~; r~:~ i na,~ce wau 1. re~u 1 t i n p ract i ca 1
difficalties vr u~:~acess:3f";J ~~:~rd~'r~ip~; a~~~
2. Tf~at tr~e gr~;~t i;;g ,:.;f the app i i c.~'.: i on i~ ~e~e~~sary for 1_he
pre~e; vat icn an~ enj~;;me; t uf s~,~b~ ~~r~t i al praperfy r i g~~t~,
an~ '
3. That t'~~ grar~t i~~g ,~f t~e ~pp i i~at icr: ~vi 1 1 not mater i a1 i y
affer~t ~~ver~el y the he~l t~h or~ ~:~f~ty ~~f perso~~= res i cl i ng
or ~.Unri: i r:g i r i:~;e r!e i gf~b~r~~~~u~ ~~i t.he p?-uperty wh i ch i s
the sub j ect c;f t~:e app 1 i c~ ~ i~r., ar~d ti~at tne ~se r~f sa i d
prope~ ty i~ th~ ma;~~:c,i~ wf~ i v!-~ : t i: ps~~~.pr,~ed to ne used
wi 1 i n~t be m~te~ i~~ l y. ci~~:r irY;Pntal tc~ the p~bl i c wei fare
or inju~ io~~ tQ tP?e value ot the pr~perty or improvements
1 ocated i n s ~ i d su~ ~~~~ur~~ i ng~ .
NQl^l, ~ Ti-i~.RErvRE, BE ! i RE:OLVE~ : .
That after careful co~~iderati~~n'~f map~, f~c.ts, exh;bits and
other evid~nce submit~ed in t~~i= matter, the applicai:ion for
the i/AR I Ai~CF b~, and t.h.e same -i s r hereby NOT ~ ecommended for
approva i to the C i t~y G~.::ar~ i 1 of the i ty~ ;;f ~upert i no; ~nd
BE 17 FURTNER RESOLVE~:
That th~ finding~. qu~i:ed ~bovc and ~n Page 2 ~re ~pproved and
adopted, an~ t!~at the Secreta~~y be, ar.d is hereby, directed
to notify' tiie parties a~fected by fihis clecision.
(Contin~:ed on Page 2)
~11 , ~ ~ ~ -1w ,
~ ~ ~ ~